Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Election Security topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents raise election‑security and signature‑verification concerns in Washington County
Summary
Speakers cited a 2022 expert witness and observed ballot counts and signature‑verification practices during the November election, alleging procedural gaps and insecure software; board accepted comment and offered follow‑up contact but no immediate remedies were announced.
On Dec. 9, several residents raised concerns about Washington County’s election processes and cybersecurity.
Karen Schmidlin cited the county auditor’s review and testimony from a 2022 trial. She quoted cybersecurity expert Mark Cook saying that certifications of election systems “have missed a lot of things” and that wireless devices in county buildings could leave systems vulnerable. Schmidlin urged the county to follow up on those concerns before the next election.
Jill Latray, an elections observer, described watching the November vote‑by‑mail signature verification process. She said about 35,000 ballots arrived on election day and that signature verification occurred late into the night and resumed the following morning. Latray said observers could not view all signatures in the state OCVR database and alleged that some ballots with non‑matching signatures were accepted without following the Vote by Mail Procedures Manual. She also told the board observers noted the BlueCrest software URL read as “not secure.”
Board members thanked the speakers and noted follow‑up via Clerk Moss; no immediate technical response or policy change was provided at the meeting. The concerns raised refer to procedural practice and to testimony from outside the meeting record; county election staff were not recorded offering a technical rebuttal during the Dec. 9 meeting.
